CVE-2026-5774

Improper synchronization of the userTokens map in the API server in Canonical Juju 4.0.5, 3.6.20, and 2.9.56 may allow an authenticated user to possibly cause a denial of service on the server or possibly reuse a single-use discharge token.

Improper synchronization of the userTokens map in the API server in Canonical Juju 4.0.5, 3.6.20, and 2.9.56 may allow an authenticated user to possibly cause a denial of service on the server or possibly reuse a single-use discharge token.

Summary

The localLoginHandlers struct in the Juju API server maintains an in-memory map to store discharge tokens following successful local authentication. This map is accessed concurrently from multiple HTTP handler goroutines without any synchronization primitive protecting it. The absence of a mutex or equivalent mechanism means that concurrent reads, writes, and deletes on the map can trigger Go runtime panics and may allow a discharge token to be consumed more than once before deletion completes.

Details

When a user authenticates through the local login flow, a discharge token is generated and stored in a plain map[string]string field named userTokens. The form handler writes to this map when authentication succeeds, and the third-party caveat checker reads from and deletes from the same map when a discharge request arrives. Both code paths execute inside goroutines dispatched by the HTTP server, meaning concurrent requests will access the map simultaneously.

Go's runtime detects concurrent map access and will terminate the process with a fatal error when a write races with another write or read. This makes the API server susceptible to a denial-of-service attack from any authenticated user who can trigger simultaneous discharge requests. Beyond the crash scenario, the read-then-delete sequence in the caveat checker is not atomic. Two goroutines processing the same token concurrently may both pass the existence check before either executes the deletion, allowing a single-use discharge token to be accepted more than once and effectively replaying authentication.

The struct definition that introduces the unsafe field is shown below.

type localLoginHandlers struct {
    authCtxt   *authContext
    userTokens map[string]string
}

The concurrent access originates from the caveat checker calling username, ok := h.userTokens[tokenString] followed by delete(h.userTokens, tokenString) with no lock held, while formHandler concurrently executes h.userTokens[token] = username in a separate goroutine.

PoC

package main

import (
    "net/http"
    "sync"
)

func main() {
    token := "acquired-discharge-token"
    endpoint := "https://target-juju-api:17070/local-login/discharge"

    var wg sync.WaitGroup
    for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
        wg.Add(1)
        go func() {
            defer wg.Done()
            req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", endpoint+"?token="+token, nil)
            http.DefaultClient.Do(req)
        }()
    }
    wg.Wait()
}

Impact

Any authenticated user who obtains a valid discharge token can send a burst of concurrent requests to the discharge endpoint. The most reliable outcome is a Go runtime panic caused by concurrent map access, which terminates the Juju API server process and denies service to all connected clients and agents. Under favorable timing conditions the same token may be accepted by multiple goroutines before deletion, bypassing the single-use enforcement and allowing repeated authentication with a token that should have been invalidated after first use.

Improper synchronization of the userTokens map in the API server in Canonical Juju 4.0.5, 3.6.20, and 2.9.56 may allow an authenticated user to possibly cause a denial of service on the server or possibly reuse a single-use discharge token.

Improper synchronization of the userTokens map in the API server in Canonical Juju 4.0.5, 3.6.20, and 2.9.56 may allow an authenticated user to possibly cause a denial of service on the server or possibly reuse a single-use discharge token.

Summary

The localLoginHandlers struct in the Juju API server maintains an in-memory map to store discharge tokens following successful local authentication. This map is accessed concurrently from multiple HTTP handler goroutines without any synchronization primitive protecting it. The absence of a mutex or equivalent mechanism means that concurrent reads, writes, and deletes on the map can trigger Go runtime panics and may allow a discharge token to be consumed more than once before deletion completes.

Details

When a user authenticates through the local login flow, a discharge token is generated and stored in a plain map[string]string field named userTokens. The form handler writes to this map when authentication succeeds, and the third-party caveat checker reads from and deletes from the same map when a discharge request arrives. Both code paths execute inside goroutines dispatched by the HTTP server, meaning concurrent requests will access the map simultaneously.

Go's runtime detects concurrent map access and will terminate the process with a fatal error when a write races with another write or read. This makes the API server susceptible to a denial-of-service attack from any authenticated user who can trigger simultaneous discharge requests. Beyond the crash scenario, the read-then-delete sequence in the caveat checker is not atomic. Two goroutines processing the same token concurrently may both pass the existence check before either executes the deletion, allowing a single-use discharge token to be accepted more than once and effectively replaying authentication.

The struct definition that introduces the unsafe field is shown below.

type localLoginHandlers struct {
    authCtxt   *authContext
    userTokens map[string]string
}

The concurrent access originates from the caveat checker calling username, ok := h.userTokens[tokenString] followed by delete(h.userTokens, tokenString) with no lock held, while formHandler concurrently executes h.userTokens[token] = username in a separate goroutine.

PoC

package main

import (
    "net/http"
    "sync"
)

func main() {
    token := "acquired-discharge-token"
    endpoint := "https://target-juju-api:17070/local-login/discharge"

    var wg sync.WaitGroup
    for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
        wg.Add(1)
        go func() {
            defer wg.Done()
            req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", endpoint+"?token="+token, nil)
            http.DefaultClient.Do(req)
        }()
    }
    wg.Wait()
}

Impact

Any authenticated user who obtains a valid discharge token can send a burst of concurrent requests to the discharge endpoint. The most reliable outcome is a Go runtime panic caused by concurrent map access, which terminates the Juju API server process and denies service to all connected clients and agents. Under favorable timing conditions the same token may be accepted by multiple goroutines before deletion, bypassing the single-use enforcement and allowing repeated authentication with a token that should have been invalidated after first use.

Juju: In-Memory Token Store for Discharge Tokens Lacks Concurrency Safety and Persistence in github.com/juju/juju

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

• Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

• GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
• GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
• GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
• GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
• GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
• GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
• GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
• GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
• GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
• GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
• GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
• GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
• GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
• GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
• GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
• GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
• GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
• GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
• GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
• GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
• GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
• GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
• GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
• GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
• GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
• GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
• GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
• GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
• GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
• GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
• GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
• GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
• GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
• GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
• GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
• GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
• GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
• GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
• GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
• GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
• GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
• GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
• GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
• GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
• GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
• GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
• GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
• GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
• GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
• GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
• GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
• GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
• GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
• GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
• GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
• GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
• GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
• GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
• GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
• GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
• GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
• GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
• GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
• GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
• GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
• GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
• GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
• GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
• GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
• GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
• GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
• GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
• GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
• GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
• GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
• GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
• GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…